If Heterosexualism Existed, We Wouldn’t Have To Make It Up

ecdanc said:

benjs said:

Thanks for posting this. I'm still digesting, but here are my first thoughts.

1. Outside of academia, I suspect most will be confused right from the get-go, where heterosexuality is given a different definition compared to the colloquially used one (a man and a woman), with no explanation or acknowledgement to that effect. That atypical definition is continued all the way through to the end. 
2. I'm all for introducing an embrace of otherness to combat and curb systemic injustices that exist today, but the tone used almost seems to err on the opposite direction - instilling guilt in those who have simply woken up being attracted to a certain type of person, and masking it as clever satire. It seems clear that she understands this portion of gender challenges well, but I think her mechanism of changing hearts and minds is deeply flawed. 
3. I don't have cable, nor the desire to access a show called Love Island on the internet. I don't know whether the show is about any of the letters in LGBTQ+ getting with any other letters in LGBTQ+, or about what I've only ever heard referred to as heterosexual relationships (and what would you call those now, or is labelling itself an abhorrent act?). Which ever two individuals are trying to get with each other on a show like this, I don't see why I should care regardless of my sexual orientation
4. Traditional gender archetypes gave us critical skills that have led to the perpetuation of our society. Does every person born with female genitalia have a destiny of being deeply empathetic, and every person born with male genitalia have a destiny of being aggressive and assertive? No; but these are predispositions formed in natural ways. What do you suggest we do as a society to assure that we still have expertise in those realms, or do you feel that gender naturally skews people to favour one of those and that we would be more well-rounded in a world without the concept of a gender?

I'll begin by saying that it appears to me this piece is meant as a sort of comedic one-off (with a serious point) that connects to Lewis's broader research (I admit, I'm not familiar with that work). In one sense, it's essentially an advertisement for her book; in another it's just a Valentine's Day gag with some measure of intellectual payoff. All of that is to say, I don't think the article figures as traditional advocacy; rather it has a somewhat limited imagined audience (potential book purchasers? regular buyers from Verso?). 

I'll turn, then, to your last point. I obviously cannot speak for Lewis (I don't know her), so I'll only speak for myself. I question your assertion that "these are predispositions formed in natural ways." I'm not sure I fully disagree, but the word "natural" there concerns me, because it does a lot of work. What exactly constitutes this "natural" miasma in which individuals and/or groups develop purported gender characteristics? I would argue that gender, as such, is overdetermined by a complex set of material conditions and discourses that make gender--both as a construct and in its specific manifestations--no more "natural" than any number of other socio-discursive formations. Which is to say, we can and should imagine new social forms that retain that which is worth retaining, while stripping away the harmful elements. Many believe such a future will require fundamentally rejecting "gender" as a meaningful concept. I'll defer that question for the moment by simply saying I find Lewis's gesture toward future forms (in the 2nd half of this piece) intriguing and worth exploring/pursuing.